Crisis of the Week: Sanofi Defends Dengue Fever Vaccine After Deaths

Protesters rally against the immunization of more than 700,000 Filipino children with the anti-dengue vaccine Dengvaxia in Manila on Dec. 18, 2017.
Photo:
Associated Press/Aaron Favila

Editor’s note: In a previous version of this article, external experts used a truncated version of Sanofi’s statement for their assessment. ​The assessments below represent the experts’ revised views based on the fuller statement from Sanofi. The previous version of this article has been removed. ​

This is a weekly commentary by external experts.

Drugmaker Sanofi SA refuted earlier this month a Philippines government report claiming a “causal association” between the company’s dengue fever vaccination and the deaths of at least three of 14 children whose deaths remain under investigation. The Philippines in December suspended use of the vaccineafter the company admitted its vaccine could worsen rather than prevent symptoms of dengue fever in some people.

Despite that assertion, Sanofi denied its vaccine caused the childrens’ deaths. The company told The Wall Street Journal in an email: “We sympathize with all the families who have suffered the loss of a child. … The University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital expert panel confirmed today that there is currently no evidence directly linking the Dengvaxia vaccine to any of the 14 deaths. In Dengvaxia clinical trials conducted over more than a decade and the over one million doses of the vaccine administered, no deaths related to the vaccine have been reported to us.”

While its vaccine is effective for people who previously had dengue fever, Sanofi said in a Nov. 29 releaseits vaccine could cause “more cases of severe disease” to people who never contracted dengue fever. The company in December said it asked regulators to changethe vaccine label to recommend people don’t take the vaccine if they weren’t infected previously. It made available to media a doctor to answer questions, said it would “continue to monitor the long-term impact” of its vaccine and said it would develop diagnostic tests “to better support [its] field use.”

Sanofi’s crisis response is evaluated by three crisis-management experts.

Meredith Eaton, vice president, March Communications: “With such a sensitive, complex issue it’s important to clearly communicate the facts and put the situation in context. Sanofi does a good job providing helpful data on the disease, its pervasiveness and the vaccine’s potential prevention, as well as information from a third-party expert panel refuting the supposed link between its vaccine and three recent deaths.

“To Sanofi’s credit, the company has maintained a consistent message across all of its communications and spokespeople to date. However, with contradictory reports yet to be reconciled, Sanofi needs to consider public perception more in its communications strategy. People are scared and aren’t sure what’s what just yet, so Sanofi would do well to demonstrate more tact and sympathy throughout its statements.

“While the company did express sympathy for the victims’ families in an email to The Wall Street Journal, its corporate messaging remains focused on data and timelines. This can feel cold and insensitive amid growing fears–not only from those already directly impacted but also from the hundreds of thousands of people who already took the vaccine before the new restrictions and label information was released. Sanofi needs to couple its data-driven approach with more consistent acknowledgement of the complexities of the situation and sympathy for the victims as it continues its mission to help curb the disease.”

Alan Hilburg, president and chief executive, HilburgMalan: “The response reflects a post-press release reality that [Sanofi's] initial statement showed a glaring absence of empathy for the ‘victims’ and their families. The Feb. 2, 2018 [email to the WSJ] from Sanofi led with, ‘We sympathize with all families who have suffered the loss of a child.’ That show of empathy is the correct strategy and should have been included as the first sentence of Sanofi’s previous statements. However, there are two glaring gaps in the [email].

“First, is its reliance on the the University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital expert panel. Sanofi is leaving itself open for further criticism if it doesn’t validate and assert the independence of the panel of its members. Second is its public conclusion that in ‘Dengvaxia clinical trials conducted over more than a decade, and with over one million doses of the vaccine administered, no deaths related to the vaccine had been reported to us.’ It would be to Sanofi’s advantage in this situation if it could show it has a protocol, practice or procedure in place to check with the…doctors who administered the doses to determine the success of the drug intervention.”

Adele Cehrs, chief executive, Epic PR Group: “When people die in any crisis scenario, compassion and empathy need to be the central focus of the message, not Sanofi’s mission. While the company expressing concern for the families who suffered the loss of a child in a statement seems like enough, the company still looks like it is out for profits, not for its patients by saying there is ‘no evidence directly linking the Dengvaxia vaccine to any of the 14 deaths.’ With $1 billion a year in profits to treat dengue fever at stake, [Sanofi] is choosing its words carefully.

“Moreover, by issuing only written statements, not video statements, the company comes across as guarded, not compassionate. Regardless of the expert panel’s findings, the public is going to expect the company to deny any connection to the deaths, which is probably what the company’s reputation engineers are anticipating. However, if the company wants to win over the concerned Philippine people who have been vaccinated and fear for their lives, saying the company will do ‘everything in its power’ to address this public health issue would be a more comforting approach than calling it a ‘pressing public health burden.’

“If other medical experts do find a connection to the vaccine and the deaths in the future, or unforeseen consequences of its use, the company will have no way to win in the court of public opinion because the statement of denial will be used against it. Crisis communications is always about staying one step ahead of what could arise as a challenge and Sanofi’s communication tactics are short-term, not long-term, solutions.”

Write to Ben DiPietro at ben.dipietro@wsj.com, and follow him on Twitter @BenDiPietro1.

Content from our sponsorDeloitteRisk management, strategy and analysis from Deloitte

The way companies are dealing with quality improvement is being transformed by new forms of data and analytics. The most important change is perhaps the shift from exclusive dependence on post-manufacturing inspection work and retrospective analysis to the prediction and early identification of problem areas and maintenance requirements. Further, while quality improvement innovations continue to evolve, companies can benefit now from adopting existing leading practices and well-established technologies.

Please note: The Wall Street Journal News Department was not involved in the creation of the content above.More from Deloitte →